B206 / R66

[zami]

Currently we fly an R44 II for sightseeing flights. We would like to expand with a B206b.j.III or R66. I guess it's a little early to make good comparisons between this aircrafts. But, what would you choose?

[Jet Ranger]

On one side you've 40 years and The Legend, on the other side is ???

Decision (and money) are only yours. But, I'm too subjective...


JR

[206 jock]

Until they sort EASA certification for the R66, it's a one horse race.

[toptobottom]

What's the budget? The R66 is twice the price of a half decent 206..

[rick1128]

Robinson has just delivered #100 and they have had 2 fatal accidents without a reasonable explanation as to what happened. Based on Robinson's accident record and they past history of how they respond and their support, I would hold off getting an R66 until the dust settles. Personally, I believe that the early R66 owners will be left holding the bag.

[EMS R22]

I wouldn't touch a R66 with a barge pole or my mates barge pole.....Get a good corrosion free JR.

[SuperF]

Yep buy a good second hand JR, or TWO for the price of a 66.

Just wait for the first series of 66 owners to hit the O/H life on that engine. You think that 250's are expensive to O/H, wait till you have to send it back to the manufacturer. No competition, now all those 44 owners will learn about those expensive turbine engines. :{

[SuperF]

If it was me, and the budget could stretch to a new 66, why not go for an LIII.

The JR isn't that much of a big step from the 44, 1 more pax, and a boot! Not such a big deal on scenics, (although it is easily twice the helicopter! I'm not biased either...)

But a LR is twice the helicopter of a 44 on those types of ops.

[toptobottom]

...or do what I did and go for an EC120. Same money (or less) as a new R66 and, shall we say, a slightly different proposition.

JRs are solid, but a bit long in the tooth now :}

[Ready2Fly]

I hear the EASA certification for the R66 is still pending due to issues with the hydraulics whereas the FAA did grant an exemption(?)

Much more 'interesting' is a rumour about an overhaul limit of 1000 cycles on the engine. Quite easy to reach when doing short scenic flights in a touring operation. :sad:

[Whirlygig]

Surely this is a case of the old adage, "Never fly the 'A' model of anything".:E

Cheers

Whirls

[Soave_Pilot]

I'm Flying SN0052 R66, and I'll tell you it is a great machine, nothing like a R44, plenty of power (I've done vertical take-offs at Max Gross), excellent fuel burn (84 lts hour I'm doing), great baggage compartment, great glide and way more stable than the R44. I'm always flying within limitations and I've had no problems so far. I'll go with the R66.

[Soave_Pilot]

Much more 'interesting' is a rumour about an overhaul limit of 1000 cycles on the engine

Overhaul limit is 3000 cycles or 2000 hours

Cheers

[HeliHenri]

Quote:
Much more 'interesting' is a rumour about an overhaul limit of 1000 cycles on the engine

Overhaul limit is 3000 cycles or 2000 hours


When facts kill the rumour ....

[CaptDean]

I would get 2 R-44 for the same price as the 66.
2 - R44 burn the same as 1 R66
6 seats total , vs 5 seats

[FH1100 Pilot]

The RR250 is a modular engine with uneven life limits/overhaul times. If we look at the TCDS for the RR250-C300, this engine is a C-20 from the compressor on back. Accordingly, if the #1 and #2 wheels are PN 23073853 and 23073854, then they have a finite life limit of 1775 hours and a cycle limit of 3000. (Not sure what the compressor times are for the 250-C300.) Big chunk o'change to replace the #1 and #2 wheels at 1775 hours.

[Heli-Jock]

longranger rocks,,,,all day long,,,,no contest!
Apart from the AD that has crippled the blade time,,,,its the best!

HJ

[Amatsu]

I test flew a new R66 for the first time today and, to be honest, I wasn't all that wowed by it. Very smooth and handles like a dream. The downside was that over 100 knots it feels just as lumpy as an R44. I guess with the same blades you'll have the same balancing issues.

Also it's cramped in the back for more than a small adult and didn't have that solid feel about it that a Bell 206 has - all still feels a bit M.Mouse for my taste. Personally I would stick to a Jetranger for AOC and leave the Robinson's to the private owners and flight training schools.

I would also agree with what others have stated about the life of the R66. Not only does the airframe have a 2200 hour overhaul life, but the engine has a 2000 hour or 3000 cycle life. The engine is not modular either, it's one lump so if anything goes wrong you have to send the whole thing for repair. RHC and RR must have teamed up to screw the market on this one.

With regards to EASA certification, RHC R66 SB-03 (hydraulic servo rework) may be the final step towards getting it but as usual is at the customers expense.

But that's just my opinion, others may feel free to disagree

[krypton_john]

CaptainDean, those two R44s will cost a lot of money to rebuild at 2000/2200 hours. What's more they never seem to get anywhere near those hours without needing new blades front and back. Now it's fuel bladders. What's next?

206B or if you need the extra seats, 206L. Not that great for sightseeing PAX though.

[Arrrj]

Soave Pilot, hooray. A post about a subject where someone has actual knowledge of what he is saying...all too rare sometimes on prune.

I too am making a decision on what to buy next, having flown a 44 for the last few years, I am a fan (yes, I actually fly one, not just make comments), and I have flown the 66 for about 6 - 7 hours - enough to make a proper judgement.

I need to buy a two blade machine, as my hangar can only fit that sort of aircraft. So it's either (new) a R66 or a Longranger IV, and yes, before someone states the obvious, they are entirely different machines. And a Longy is 2.5 x as much to buy ! Plus you can't talk to the PAX eye to eye).

A moment of clarity though if I may...comparing a 40 + year old designed Jetranger to a R66 is just not on. They are completely different machines, with vastly different performance. A 66 will cruise at 120 knots, more if you want to get somewhere fast, a Jetty will do 100 (maybe 110) knots. Tail rotor authority on the Jetty is not so great, the 66 is fantastic (even with the big tail). I have had 5 adults, 3/4 fuel in a 66 and it will OGE hover no problem...excuse me, but a Jetty simply will not do that. 4 adults, lots of bags and a 66 will go straight up - a Jetty, no it won't.

Again, a study of the facts (as rightly pointed out above) will put to rest a lot of the rubbish that is said about the 66 (and indeed the 44).

We all want knowledge, let's just try to stay with the facts.

PS - I still haven't made up my mind, but flying the 66 is really good, solid, fast, reliable, NEW design and much less than a Jetty was when you could buy them new !

PPS - a NEW (design) 206 from Bell at (say) 1.2 meg, with a new motor etc would be a welcome addition to my list of choices, but not a 2nd hand machine.

Arrrj

[Bell_Flyer]

Sightseeing business? Why not a second hand Astar 350B/BA or Super D? All cost less than a new 66 and have more power. Lots of 2nd hand parts support. 12 yearly frame is around 6 sets of TT straps for a LR.:O

[Hughes500]

Arrrj

Just curious, both 66 and 206 are 5 seat teetering head machines, both aluminium made. A question for you, the 66 is about 400 lbs or 25% lighter than a 206. Seeing as both machines do the same thing, of the same size with the "same" engine, where has 25% of the metal gone in an R66 ?
No i havent flown an R66, but used to own 206's:eek:

[SuperF]

Ok, so the 66 is a lot lighter! That's going to save all those good things like power required, etc. That answers why they can get away with a smaller engine than a JR.

Soave, or Arrrj what is the fuel capacity of the 66, just curious regarding the 3/4 fuel comment, as I have a lot of discussion with 500 pilots who love to tell me that on full tanks a 500 will out lift a JR. My answer has always been fine, but if you are stuck 400 miles offshore on a sinking boat, I would rather have a JR with full tanks than a 500, as I can't swim 100 miles, maybe you can. Or, you know, bigger tanks, the thing is going to lift less when the tanks are full. It's the stupidest comparison you could have.

So is 3/4 fuel an hours worth, or nearly 3 hours worth? If it's got tanks like a JR then that is quite impressive. I still won't get one, but pretty good for a Robbie...

I think that RR are learning something from RHC. how to really make money!

[Vertical Freedom]

crapsinson flimsicopter......... errrr .........death trap comes to mind, throw away blades, or, a survivable minor bingle post-crash fire consuming all the occupants. hmmmm - no thanks, I reckon boycott the R - widow makers :yuk:

[Hughes500]

Super F

206 96 gals ( if memory serves me right with range extender, sold my 206 's for 500's years ago ) at 25 gals an hour that is say 4 hours at 110 kts range approx 420 nm

500 72 gals ( wit fargo tank) at 25 gals hour say 3 hours at 135 kts equals 405 nm

Not much in it really, but 15 nm is still a long swim !!!!

As for R66 yes its lighter but at the expense of strutual integrity ?:sad:

[Soave_Pilot]

Soave, or Arrrj what is the fuel capacity of the 66

it's 279 liters useful

I think you could fly at least 2 1/2 hours with 3/4 tank at 70% torque (that will fly you at 105-110 knots)

At 72% torque I was burning 1,38 lts per minute last time I checked.




I think comparing a Long ranger to a R66 it is a bit unfair, of course a Long Ranger is better.
But it just makes no sense operating a LR for sightseeing at my point of view.
R66 is the right choice for this one. But if we were talking corporate flying or anything similar I'll go with the LR for sure!! I operate in many confined areas and tight spots and the LR could lack of power depending on your weight, the R66 will do the job!

Cheers!

[Arrrj]

OK VF, we get it, you don't like Robinson Helicopters. I see that your alias on another Aussie Heli site also makes the same statements with your trademark colourful language. Why don't you use your energy and try to add something useful to the debate? :ugh:

Again, perhaps we can stick with the facts. In Australia there have been 4 tragic helicopter accidents caused by fire (after crashing) within the last 12 months or so. 2 of these have been R44's (without fuel bags) and 2 were Eurocopter product (Twin Squirrel @ Lake Eyre and B3 at YSBK), presumably with fuel bags and "extra" safety that Robinson does not offer (according to many) ?!

Maybe someone can explain why the 2 Robbie accidents were worse the the 2 Eurocopter fires ? Maybe someone can explain why the Robbie fires were worse than the Eurocopter fires ? Of course, that's not possible is it ? All 4 were really bad accidents and NOT LIMITED TO ROBBIES !

Like I have said prior, let's stick to the facts and this site maybe of value to all.

PS - I think SP answered the questions directed to me, however I suggest that anyone interested in finding out about the R66 look at the Robbie website. We will all be flying them soon, I went to the the factory in January and they can't make them quick enough. (Of course VF would rather walk, up to him !).

Arrrj

[Arrrj]

Hughes500,

I think I can answer you question but before I do, I want to make one thing clear. 206 Jetties are great machines, but they are a 40 year old design and (this is important) they don't make them anymore.

The weight difference is due to the fact the the 66 is a smaller machine in terms of body length (it is the same width) and the rest of it is Frank saving weight to add to performance. Does that make it less "solid", probably, but what does that mean in the real world ? Maybe not a lot.

If I had $2.2 meg spare, I would probably get a L4, which has HEAPS of power and is a proven performer (and yes, you can still buy one new). But I can get 2.5 x R66 for the price of a L4, and I can talk to the PAX face to face.

As I have said prior, I haven't made a choice, and I thank everyone so far for their constructive comments. :ok:

Arrrj

[Vertical Freedom]

Namaste Aarj, Yes You are right I don't like the robinson flimsicopters. I have been around them for 23years & yes though crisp & reponsive to fly they have killed 2 good mates, nearly killed 2 others & from engineering professional contacts I have had a good insight into the flimsy workmanship & minimal metal built into them. They rust, they throw blades, ah f.... its not worth explaining as many Robi lovers are blind to their almighty R? we are all entitled to an opinion (in the free world) I like Holdens & not Fords, so what? but mention that about R??? WoW look out the war path has again commenced. :yuk:

I have had enough time in & around R's to make a fair judgement. In my experience I know that they are NOT as safe as claimed & I feel this is constructive. The new R66 has already had 3, yes 3 catastrophic airframe failures with fatalities on all. Very sad to loose fellow Pilot's & friends. :{

Happy landings

VF

[Arrrj]

Hello VF,

OK, you mention something of interest. You state that there have been 3 "airframe" failures with the R66.

I am aware of 2 x 66 crashes (South America and USA), and I have researched the causes (as best I can) and read expert opinion (s) (sure, the official reports are not out yet), but the experts (and one of them purports to be a crash inspector in Europe) have formed a view that these 2 were caused by (simply put) over controlling the aircraft. In one well worded theory it has been suggested that the rate of climb (3k per minute) is so great that the chances of becoming weightless at the top of climb is a present danger for inexperienced pilots (neg G), and that expert had a view that at least one of the crashes above was caused by this.

So, in both cases, not "airframe failure"...but pilot error. The 66 and 206 (etc) are two blade machines, you can (of course) cut the tail off, particularly if you were trained as a fixed wing pilot.

OK, so a) what's your view (and any knowledge) of above and b) what about the mystery third accident ? What's the details of that please ?

There are over 100 66's flying today. Orders for another 300 in the system. SOMEONE likes the machines. Again, I have flown one and I reckon it's a good thing. Easy to fly etc, plenty of power. Really precise, more solid than a 44. (Bloody dirty with the exhaust where it is though ! Lot's of cleaning required).

However I am happy to accept information to the contrary, but facts please.

Thanks
Arrrj :ok:

[SansAnhedral]

206 Jetties are great machines, but they are a 40 year old design and (this is important) they don't make them anymore.

Pretty sure you can still buy a 206L-4 :confused:

[Arrrj]

SA

Yes we all know that the 206 L4 is available for sale. Perhaps you should read the rest of the thread where this is clearly stated, as is the fact that you can only buy (new) 2 (jet) two blade helis. L4 and 66.

You would appreciate a L4 is an entirely different aircraft to a 206 Jetty...

Arrrj

[SansAnhedral]

You would appreciate a L4 is an entirely different aircraft to a 206 Jetty

I suppose I need to apologise for not knowing precisely what a "206 Jetty" is referring to. 206A, 206B, 206L? I am still not sure.

And I must say, this is the first time in memory where someone referred to a new generation 206 as being a "completely different aircraft" to an older generation. Typically people hammer on Bell's current products for being extremely minor alterations to ancient designs.

[birrddog]

I suppose I need to apologise for not knowing precisely what a "206 Jetty" is referring to. 206A, 206B, 206L? I am still not sure.

JetRanger == models 206A-BIII
LongRanger == models 206L1-4

[SuperF]

Good point hughes500... let me guess what you fly!!

down here in NZ, most 500s are stuck with the old 50-60 gal tank, so 2 hour hops everywhere, whereas most JRs have the range extenders... Thats the difference im referring to. in NZ 2 hr hops are not too much of a problem, as you go past a few pumps in 2 hrs, but in OZ or Canada, different story.

Now some NZ 500 owner is going to come on here and bleat that they have a fargo tank, well it would be the first one i have seen, and i have seen a few.

Just saying that you have to compare apples with apples, an example of 4 normal sized people and 3/4 a tank of gas is really hard to make comparisons about. I took 4 really large people plus myself over 9000' a couple of days ago in an old BII with the small tail rotor, no problem at all, and i have been in that same helicopter at about 13,500' full of pax.

But the guy wants a new machine so the JR is out. and sorry, whoever said it, but we won't all be flying them one day! you may be, but i won't.

ps, i may give the 500 boys a bit of grief sometimes, but I'd rather fly them than anything beginning with R...

[Hughes500]

Super F

Interesting all the 500's I know in the UK ( 22) except 3 have fargo tanks in them some even have the robertson giving 4 hours flying.Agrre about not flying machines starting with R !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!